Criminal Law

Three elements of a crime

Actus Reus: A wrongful act

Mens rea: An individual’s mental state or guilty mind

Causation: A causal connection between the act and the result

Actus Reus: Acts and Omissions

A criminal act (actus reus) must typically be a voluntary, affirmative act that causes a criminally proscribed result.

A criminal act may also occur by an omission or failure to act when there is a legal duty to act. Such a duty arises when:

• there is a statute (e.g., obligation to file a tax return)

• there is a contract (e.g., a lifeguard’s obligation to save a drowning person)

• there is a special relationship (e.g., a parent’s duty to a child)

• there is a detrimental undertaking (e.g., leaving a victim in worse condition after treatment)

• there is causation (e.g., failing to aid after causing a victim’s peril)

Mens Rea

Mens rea is the guilty mind or legally proscribed mental state that a defendant must possess to commit a crime. Except for strict-liability crimes (which have no mens reas requirement), a crime is committed when the criminal act is coupled with a guilty mind.

Specific Intent Crimes

Specific-intent crimes require that the defendant have a subjective desire, a specific objective, or knowledge to accomplish the prohibited result. The common-law crimes that require specific intent are

• First degree murder

• Inchoate offenses—attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy

• Assault with intent to commit battery

• Theft offenses— larceny, larceny by trick, false pretenses, embezzlement, forgery, burglary, and robbery

Certain defenses (e.g., voluntary intoxication, unreasonable mistake of fact) are available only for specific-intent crimes

Malice Crimes

Malice crimes (e.g., common law murder, arson) require reckless disregard of a high risk of harm. Malice does not require thta a defendant act with ill will toward the victim. The defendant need only commit the criminal act without excuse, justification, or mitigation.

General Intent Crimes

General intent crimes (e.g., manslaughter, batter, rape, kidnapping, false imprisonment) require only the intent to perform an unlawful act.

Model Penal Code

Crimes defined by statute generally state the mens rea requirement. The four levels of culpability according to the MPC are:

• Purposely: Defendant’s conscious objective is to engage in the conduct or to cause a certain result

• Knowingly/Willfully: Defendant is aware or knows that the result is practically certain to occur based on the conduct

• Recklessly: Defendant acts with a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk

• Negligently: Defendant should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a material element of a crime exists or will result from the conduct (i.e., a gross deviation from the standard of care)

Strict-Liability Crimes

Strict-liability crimes do not require a criminal mental state. Proof of a criminal act is sufficient for conviction. But offenses requiring NO mens rea are generally disfavored, so there must be clear legislative intent to dispense with the mens rea requirement.

Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability crimes do not require actus reus by the defendant because vicarious liability holds a defendant criminally responsible for the actus reus of a third party. It is generally limited to regulatory crimes, and punishment is generally limited to fines

Corporations may be vicariously liable under modern statutes (but NOT at common law) for an act performed by a high-ranking corporate agent who likely represents corporate policy.

Causation

The defendant’s mens rea (if required) must cause the criminal act, and the act must cause the particular result made unlawful by the statute

Mistake of Fact

A defendant’s misunderstanding of a material fact

Common Law

• Specific-intent crimes: It is a defense even if the mistake is unreasonable

• General intent or malice crimes: It is a defense only if the mistake is reasonable

MPC

• It is a defense if the mistake prevents the prosecution from establishing the required state of mind for a material element of the crime

Strict Liability

• It is NOT a defense becayse strict liability offenses have no mens rea requirement

Mistake of Law

A defendant’s misunderstanding of the legal effect of a known fact or circumstance

Common Law

• It is generally NO defense even if the mistake is reasonable

MPC

• A defendant’s lack of knowledge of a criminal statute is NO defense

• A defendant’s honest mistake of law may be a defense if it negates the requisite mental state

Transferred intent

Transferred intent (i.e., the unintended-victim ruie) may supply the required intent when a defendant acts with intent to cause harm to one person or object and that act directly results in harm to another person or object. It is usually confined to homicide, battery, and arson.

This doctrine applies only to “bad aim” cases—not “mistaken identity” cases. And transferred intent will not satisfy the mens rea requirement for attempted crimes, so the crime must be completed for the doctrine to apply.

Principal

• Person whose criminal act or omission is the actus reus of the crime

• Is physically or constructively present at the scene of the crime

• Liable for target and foreseeable crimes

Accomplice

Principal (2nd degree)

• Person who (with the requisite mens rea aids or abets a principal prior to or during the crime

• Is physically or constructively present during the commission of the crime

• Liable for target and foreseeable crimes

Accessory before the fact

• Person who (with the requisite mens rea) aids or abets a principal prior ro or during the crime

• Is not physically or constructively present during the commission of the crime

• Liable for target and foreseeable crimes

Accessory after the fact

• Person who aids or assists a felon avoiding apprehension or conviction after committing a felony

• Knows that a felony was committed

• Liable for an independent crime

Accomplice Liability and Withdrawal

An accomplice is responsible for the crime and all other crimes that are the natural and probable consequence of the accomplice’s conduct.

To withdraw, an accomplice must:

• Repudiate prior aid

• Do all that is possible to countermand prior assistance AND

• Do so before the chain of events is in motion and unstoppable

Insanity

For insanity to be a defense, the elements of insanity must have been present at the time of the crime. The four legal test for insanity are:

• M’Naghten: The defendant did not know the nature and quality of the act, or the wrongfulness of the act, because of a defect of reason due to mental disease (right from wrong test)

• Irresistible Impulse: The defendant lacked the capacity for self-control and free choice due to a metal disease or defect (unable to conform conduct to the law)

• Durham: The unlawful act was the product of the defendant’s mental disease or defect (“but for” test)

• MPC: At the time of the conduct, the defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act or to conform their conduct to the law because of a mental disease or defect (combines M’Naghten and irresistible impulse)